Council did request additional rules to control noise. They also asked the planning department to write guidelines for its development officers to help them consider privacy and access to natural light when they make discretionary calls. The amendments go to public hearing for further debate and a full council vote March 18.

Read our live coverage here, scrolling down for presentations for and against the amendments from 17 members of the public. The updates are posted in reverse chronological order.

4:30 p.m.

Motion passes. Sloan is the only one who votes against. Krushell, Mandel, Leibovici and Diotte vote for.

This means changes go to a public hearing on March 18. The administration will also bring forward an amendment to control the noise by requiring new narrow homes to vent out the back rather than the side. Administration will also be required to develop guidelines to guide the development officer’s discretion with regards to higher density – that means concerns about privacy, availability of natural light and mechanical noise.

4:25 p.m.

Coun. Kim Krushell has a motion to put on the floor. She would also like to hear from committee members what they would think about asking for architectural guidelines for the entire city. (Mandel makes a bit of a choking sound).

Coun. Linda Sloan asks if the department has done an assessment of neighbourhood deficiencies.

Mackie said each department measures that for their own infrastructure, and none have identified any deficiencies. The fire chief, for example, is doing a good job of monitoring the fire stations. The pipes in the ground were built to handle a population far larger than what is already there.

Sloan asked if the department has met its legal obligations for public consultation.

A member of the law branch says they need to have an open house, and they need to advertize that. They have met their legal obligations, she said.

4:15 p.m.

Coun. Don Iveson asks if the city would be done for mature neighbourhood zoning changes if these pass. Mackie says no. This is a large step in that direction.

Iveson asks if the department will be looking at more architectural guidelines. Mackie says that, unless the council directs them to do something different, this is all they will be doing on architectural guidelines.

Iveson asks about the frat houses. The changes seems to suggest perhaps the houses would not be tied to their current location.

Mackie said simply moving the regulations from one section of the bylaw to another, will not change how the frat houses are regulated. There is no change for the frat houses.

Iveson asks about the duplexes. Mackie said he can’t remember the last time he saw an application for a duplex because it’s difficult to build that horizantal fire barrier.

Iveson suggests it might not cause any difficulty to just take that out then, since duplexes (one home on top of the other) seem to be a contentious piece.

4:12 p.m.

Henderson asks what is going to protect amenity space for row houses. Mackie said a requirement for amenity space and parking space is written into the bylaw.

Henderson said there is nothing in the bylaw that gives a minimum requirement. City administration says it’s 47 sub 5. Amenity space needs to be four metres by four metres.

Henderson asks why the administration is taking out the clause that asks for a landscaping plan. Mackie said it’s difficult to do that and ensure consistency.

4:04 p.m.

Coun. Kim Krushell asks about the EFCL’s concern about moving some of the rules from the use area to the regulations. In many cercumstances, they have not been happy with the development officers judgments.

Is there a way to make the development officer’s process more public, she asked.

Mackie said there are internal documents that the development officers use to make decisions. The department has thought of making a public document out of that. That could make a difference, he said, but he wouldn’t want that to become a separate formal bylaw. It’s meant as supplementary information.

Krushell said the other issue is site coverage. There seems to be a different interpretation on how much is changing.

Mackie said the front yard setback changes will actually improve the ability to provide private amenity space. You can reduce the front yard to give more behind the house. Mackie says the site coverage and height restrictions will ensure home owners can’t build monster houses.

4:00 p.m.

Coun. Don Iveson said Mackie hasn’t talked as much about the changes to the mature neighbourhood overlay. He asked why developers need to wait 21 days before handing in the application during the consultation process.

Mackie said that’s needed because the city will continue to review the permit. It’s frustrating for neighbours when the city approves a different version of the design than they were shown. These regulations allow the community and the city to review the project in parallel.

Iveson asks what the limits to the development officer’s discretion is. Mackie said there is no real limit. They need to look at each project on its own merit and understand how they will affect the neighbouring properties.

3:55 p.m.

Coun. Sohi asks how the city is doing with its goal of 25 per cent of growth being infill housing.

Mackie said the growth is very, very slow in terms of infill. The neighbourhoods that are really busy are seeing maybe 10 small projects a year.

Mackie said these changes will make it easier by broadening the housing choice available for developers and homeowners.

Mackie says these amendments are basically a bite sized piece. To implement all the infill guidelines would have taken years and years. Bringing forward the full set of amendments for RF1 would have been too much.

Sohi says he was impressed by the presentations, sees overwhelming support of these changes. “I think our attitudes are changing,” he said. He says administration has done great work.

3:30 p.m.

Councillors are taking their 15 minute afternoon break. Here are a few comments from those watching on twitter (those weighing in with the #yegcc hashtag seem weighted in favour of the changes):

@estolte I think these are really cool!! Changing the way we build and use land in #yeg doesn't have to be scary and this shows that. #yegcc

Coun. Ben Henderson says what he doesn’t see in these amendments is a concern with privacy. He’s confused why this is no longer mentioned in this bylaw.

Mackie says this was always left up to the discretion of the development officer. That’s why they’ve been left out here.

Henderson suggests that it should be specifically mentioned in order to give direction to the development officer. It was mentioned in every single part of the mature neighbourhood guidelines. This is one reason why the public is upset about these zoning changes, because what people really care about is privacy and sunlight. Why would you leave that out?

“Those are quality of life issues we can certainly add in the context of the noise concerns,” Mackie said.

Henderson said he’s been pushing for that for four years, and seems frustrated that they aren’t being dealt with in this batch of changes.

3:20 p.m.

Coun. Linda Sloan asks why the full residential guidelines are not covered in this.

Mackie said 50-foot lots were not covered by the guidelines but they brought it forward anyway to give more diversity in housing form. That change is consistent with the objectives of the guidelines.

As for the rest of the guidelines not included here, “we are progressively implementing the infill guidelines,” Mackie said. The city will also need to look at changes to the RF1 zones in the future.

Sloan asks if there is a commitment for when the rest will be implemented. Mackie doesn’t give a date.

Sloan asks about changes giving more freedom to development officers. Many communities have raised this concern.

Mackie said this is not true. He says there is no more freedom for development officers.

Rebecca Anderson, part of the city’s law branch, weighs in to back Mackie up saying that there is effectively no change to the development officer’s discretionary powers.

3:15 p.m.

Mandel asks about subdividing lots in RF1 zones. Mackie says the current zoning in RF1 is a minimum 39-foot lot, which is why subdivision is not possible now. There are 80,000 lots like this in the RF1 zone (compared to about 6,000 in RF2 etc.)

Mandel asks why it’s so difficult to include noise in these bylaws, at least to tell people with narrow houses that the air conditioner and other mechanical devices need to vent out the back. Mackie said that would not be complicated and they could bring it back to council.

What other questions came up? Mandel asked himself, deciding not to ask about amenity space, waving his hand.

On front garages, he thinks the rules requiring home owners to match the majority is a pretty clear rule.

3:10 p.m.

Coun. Kim Krushell asked about the opposition to the 50 foot lots, specifically allowing duplexes on those lots. Mackie clarifies that duplexes won’t be allowed on subdivided lots, at least not on a 25 foot lot (7.6 metres).

For front garages – the community expressed concerns about the wording regarding front approaches. Mackie says that the garage needs to be consistent with the majority of the houses on the block. So if the majority have front access but rear garages, that the only thing that would be allowed. The new house would have to go with a garage behind the house.

On the noise issue, why didn’t the city look at that, Krushell asked. Mackie said the focus was on densification this time. It didn’t deal with the mechanical issue, but they will get to it. “We’re not done with the infill guidelines yet,” Mackie said.

Krushell asks if Mackie will expand more on the built form, if they will look more at architectural guidelines and perhaps include pictures of built form. She’s seen that on other city’s websites, she said. “That’s the one area that I find is still quite limited in terms of what we’ve got here,” she said.

Mackie said: “I’m loath to put anything in that is too prescriptive.” If you make the architectural standards too restrictive for mature neighbourhoods, it will encourage builders to go out to the suburbs.

3:05 p.m.

Councillors get the chance to ask questions of administration.

Coun. Karen Leibovici asks what happens if these amendments aren’t adopted. Scott Mackie’s answer is that the city keeps making amendments one by one, somewhat haphazardly.

On front garages, Mackie answers Leibovici’s question to say that these amendments tighten restrictions on front garages, even when the home of the lot prior to the infill already had a front garage.

These changes won’t make Edmonton meet it’s 25% target for development in mature neighbourhood. The city will need more larger, high density projects for that. “This isn’t going to come close to rebuilding an entire community,” Mackie said.

On noise pollution, Mackie said they have not address that in this set of amendments, but they will be looking at addressing that in the next round of amendments.

Leibovici asked about the flex-housing that one public presenter brought up. Mackie said that wasn’t included in the guidelines, but that could be a discussion in the future.

2:30 p.m.

Still waiting for the debate to begin again. Council is now debating what to spend on the EPCOR Rossdale facility.

Outside council chambers, Mayor Stephen Mandel said council may be able to proceed on some elements, but others will likely need changes.

“We really need to look for ways in which we can create a more dynamic atmosphere in our communities,” Mandel said. “For the younger generation, we keep saying, ‘Don’t push people to the suburbs,’ well, they’ve got no other place to go. They want single-family homes just like everyone else does.

“There were very, very good arguments put forward by the younger generation that was here today,” Mandel said.

“(Others made) the same arguments we’ve heard historically about ‘Don’t change anything, keep our neighbourhoods the way they are.’ ”

Committee broke at noon for lunch and will return at 1:30. However, they have another item to deal with first before they return to this debate. I’ll send out a tweet when it gets underway again, this time with questions to administration before the four members of the committee vote. They can either vote to send the zoning changes as is to the full council for approval, or can sent back in part or in full to the administration to do more work.

Sloan said her problem with this is that the city is not reassessing neighbourhoods to see if there are adequate parks, emergency services before approving the increased density.

Forsythe response and says that is exactly the problem. They are very deficient in green space in Queen Mary Park. “That’s certainly something we’re concerned with.”

Henderson questions the community leagues’ concerns with built form. Because right now, the current zoning requirements allow houses that are much, much larger than the bungalows that are common in many mature neighbourhood.

Zubot says the problem is often the foot print of the building that gets build. It’s been said that the department is not varying the massing. “But this is stage one,” she said, afraid more changes are coming.

Henderson said he’s hearing sunshine, privacy and noise are the major concerns that were omitted in this bylaw.

11:45 a.m.

A small-scale infill developer, Martin-Drysdale says flexibility is needed and the city should also take a look at parking requirements. That was in response to a question from Coun. Jane Batty. Batty asked if that should be left to the discretion of the development officer.

“Discretion is a double-edged sword,” said Martin-Drysdale. Builders like certainty. They don’t want major decisions to be left up to the discretion of a single person.

Coun. Don Iveson clarifies that Martin-Drysdale is saying we need to pass these bylaws now. Then start right away on a conversation about where else subdivision of 50-foot lots could take place.

Iveson asks how a duplex is any difference than a secondary suite. McDonald says a secondary suite is limited to 600 feet. The duplex is a second full-sized residence. McDonald says a full Montreal-style up-down duplex has never been built in Edmonton.

In response to a question from Coun. Amarjeet Sohi, Martin-Drysdale says she thinks the changes should be applied to RF1 because right now it is very difficult to find these lots. There just aren’t that many 50-foot lots with homes that are worth pulling down in RF2 zones.

Sohi asks McDonald if allowing the subdivision of 50-foot lots doesn’t actually further the cause of maintaining a core of single-family houses. You build two single-family houses instead of one. That actually gives you more single-family homes. McDonald says that’s one way to look at it. He’s most concerned about allowing duplex homes anywhere in the neighbourhood.

11:35 a.m.

Coun. Ben Henderson asks why it’s a concern to allow row houses to take up more space. Bev Zubot says the problem is that they will lose their amenity space, the space to play or sit right outside the unit.

11:30 a.m.

Coun. Kerry Diotte asks what could make the public consultation better, suggests a Q and A session.

Then asks what is the worst part of the bylaw for Rob McDonald. McDonald says it’s the loss of the commitment to maintaining a core of single-family homes in these neighbourhoods, and second that if the city is allowed to skip its public consultation process here, why even have it?

11:25 a.m.

Coun. Kim Krushell says the decision is not going to be easy for councillors. She says the point about noise was a good one. Mechanical equipment should be required to vent to the back.

She asked Tegan is we should explore having houses face the lane ways, when often those lane ways aren’t pretty. Tegan Martin-Drysdale says they should be exploring it further because other cities have done this and lane ways can be improved.

Krushell asked why it would be considered problematic to allow homes to vary how far forward they push the houses. Byron Kwasnitza says he would like the rules to look at the entire block face, not just the neighbours.

Krushell asked what more consultation was needed. Rob McDonald said the city held an open house, but none of the community leagues were even invited. The EFCL was invited, but it’s not their job to notify everyone.

11: 20 a.m.

The speakers are now finished. Coun. Linda Sloan starts off the questioning and asks how much infill people think should be allowed.

In response, Irene Blain says you should look at how much the existing infrastructure can support.

Paul Gibson says there should be no limit. The city should let the market decide. People own their lots individually and should be able to decide on their own property.

Tai Ziola says it’s really had to predict what will happen in the future. It would be foolish to try to decide that right now.

Alex Macdonald says if you put limits on the number of people who are able to upgrade, eventually the community will hit its limit. “That limits the value of my property,” he says.

Sloan says the other challenge is that the city is a long way from renewing the emergency services that are serving the mature neighbourhoods. All of the funding is currently focused on building new. There’s no data on where there are granny suites, etc., for emergency personal to know they should be searching the basement as well. We lost a life because of that recently, she said.

Nick Iozza said the city is working on addressing the problem of illegal suites and getting them properly registered.

11:14 a.m.

Rob McDonald from the Strathcona community, bringing council’s attention to the letter in opposition to the zoning changes that is before them. It’s signed by 28 community leagues. He says the administration is not following the guidelines, or if they are, they are “colouring way outside the lines.” They are greatly increasing the density that was agreed on. “They’ve cherry picked which guidelines they want to implement.”

Also, there has been no time for adequate community consultation. We want growth and density in our older neighbourhoods, but it has to be well done if they are going to preserve those elements of the mature neighbourhoods that people like. “We ask you to instruct the administration to go back, carry out an effective public engagement process, and bring it back to you when it’s ready.”

He’s filed a grievance against the authors of this bylaw, but has gotten no response. He says the public consultation process was violated.

11:10 a.m.

Byron Kwasnitza is speaking against the changes, and said the biggest problem was the lack of consultation with the communities. They are the biggest stakeholders.

Also, the amendments are going to give much more power to the development officers. They do not implement the current rules uniformly, he said.

He’s opposed to front garages, and says we aren’t giving the same consideration to mature neighbourhoods that we’re giving to suburban neighbourhoods. Look at Terwillegar Towne. They get a uniform front and no front garages. Why is city council poised to allow variation in the street face and front garages in mature neighbourhoods?

11:05 a.m.

Derek Forsythe from Queen Mary Park Community League spoke against the amendments. His issues go back to earlier downtown north edge studies that were not implemented. Those earlier studies said they should preserve what RF1 housing remains. Those homes are exactly the city price average, and even without any follow-through from the city on redevelopment, they are seeing an increase in families. They’ve gone from one child on the block to five, and it’s simply been an organic process. Those people who decided to move in, decided to forgo the new home and open concept plans of the suburbs, for a larger yard in a central location.

If the city council can just get administration moving on that downtown north edge plan, they should do that and preserve what single homes are left. They give a nice alternative.

11:03 a.m.

Chris Vander Hoek, intern architect who moved back to Edmonton several years ago, is speaking in favour of the bylaw and say they don’t go far enough. We need to allow subdivisions of 50-foot lots throughout the most common RF1 zone if we really want to change the city, he said. In Vancouver, they have houses that back onto the rear laneways, and if you want to develop like that, you can simply download a large package of information from the city website to tell you how to do it. It means homeowners don’t have to rely as much on developers to make a change on their property. This would especially be important in transit oriented development where parking spaces are not as important.

10:57 a.m.

Paul Gibson is Tegan’s partner at RedBrick, and is speaking in favour of these amendments as well. He says the changes now coming to the RF2 zones should be allowed throughout RF1 as well. These are some of the neighbourhoods that are in most need of new housing styles, he said.

Allowing a slight height increase can make a huge different for people living in a narrow home without significantly impacting the neighbours.

He’s also in favour of front garages if they are not taking over all of the front of the house.

10:55 a.m.

It’s time to change the conversation, says Tegan Martin-Drysdale, an infill developer with RedBrick and resident of Riverdale. She’s in favour of the changes and think they don’t go far enough. We need a game changing idea to help revitalize mature neighbourhoods. What Edmonton needs is more flex housing, she says. We need homes that include a secondary suite that can be rented out to help a young couple cover the mortgage. When they have kids, the suite can give them more space for the growing family. When they are older and want to downsize, they could move into that secondary suite and rent out the rest of the house.

These changes are a start. But you need to allow secondary and garden suites on narrow lots. Increase the site coverage and height requirements. “We allow more density in our suburbs than we do in our mature neighbourhoods now,” she said. She’s dedicating her live to this cause, and wants a real conversation about game changers.

10:50 a.m.

If anything, these zoning changes don’t go far enough, says Elaine Hyshka, who just finished a semi-detached home in Bonnie doon. She wanted to share a personal example. She recently finished school in Toronto and moved back to Edmonton. They found a lot in Bonnie doon and decided to build the semi-detached with a friend. They needed three variances to build the home, but was declined. They had to go to the appeal board, where the community league opposed them. When they asked why, they were told they oppose anything that has a variance to the mature neighbourhood overlay. “It was a nightmare,” she said. But in the end, they love their new home.

They want to build their neighbourhood and be part of it for many years, but the consultation process has put them at odds with their neighbours.

Doug Kelly, of Kelly Developments, spoke in favour of the changes. As Scott Mackie pointed out, many cities already allow the subdivision of 50 foot lots and it works well. He lived in a 17 foot wide home in Calgary and “found it very pleasurable.” It just depends on design. He presented council with renderings of two homes he intends to build.

On the other hand, he is very much opposed to allowing front drive garages anywhere with a back alley. If you feel unsafe driving into a back alley, try getting a motion-detecting light.

Dennis Jerrett from Riverdale says there are amendments here that actually make it harder to develop on small lots. First, the side set backs are supposed to be 20 per cent of the width, except where you have a small lot, which seems to get penalized with a 2.5 metre setback, larger than any others. The garage setback is similar, he said. The city says the setbacks are needed to allow for a 4.5 metre driveway in front of the garage, but it means the driveway is required to be large than the garage could be.

Finally, he doesn’t like the rules that don’t allow people to make a small second story with dormer windows. This is making things more restrictive and making less living space for people. He’s at a loss to understand how these changes are an improvement.

10:35 a.m.

Ian Morgan is next, and he says he definitely supports the amendments and especially the subdivision of 50 foot lots. We can’t just build out in the suburbs, he said. “I would like to see the opportunity for young families to live within the city core,” he said. He would also like to see the removal of the requirement to have two-car garages everywhere, and would also like to see builders be able to build an extra home at the back of the lot, facing the lane, without it being classified as a secondary suite.

Ryan Catena, president of the Newton Community League, spoke against the changes. These changes have gone far beyond the intent of the agreed on residential guidelines. That’s a concern for those who want to maintain the quality of life in mature neighbourhoods. The changes to the mature neighbourhood overlay will change the look and feel of the community, which is important to the community as they try to revitalize.

Catena says one year to 18 months is needed for a true consultation process for these zoning changes.

10:30 a.m.

Next up is Bev Zubot, from the Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues. They held several workshops, where many people were disappointed that they weren’t notified before the bylaws went to council. It was also very difficult to cover everything in these workshops. “There’s just a lot to consider; a lot to understand,” she said.

But in general, people were in favour of the majority of the changes, and were in favor of the idea of subdividing 50-foot lots. But there was opposition to other elements – especially those that reduce the amount of community consultation. The EFCL’s legal advice says that moving the rules from the use section to the regulations section does make a big difference. She realizes this contradicts the legal advice the city got, but perhaps they need to get a third legal advice.

People were also opposed to allowing duplex housing anywhere in RF2 zoning. They are also opposed to increased site coverage for row housing in RF3, and contrary to what was said today, “yes there is an increase, as significant increase,” she said.

10:25 a.m.

Alex Macdonald, a resident of Belgravia, says he has an issue with the rules concerning “mechanical noise.” These regulations have no teeth, he says. He gives an example of the narrow houses in suburbia, where there are no windows on either side so if the air conditioner vents out to the side, no one hears it. But where there is a new house that moves into an older neighbourhood, it moves in beside older homes with less insulation. They do have windows on the side.

He woke up on day to discover a high whine from the new house right beside them from their air conditioner. They measured the noise decibel and found near 80. “You could not sleep in our bedroom without wax ear plugs,” he said. The problem was only solved when they threatened to sue. Then within two days the machine was venting to the back of the house.

His problem is not unique, he said. The neighbourhood used to be quite. Now you walk through the neighbourhood and hear a whine, all the time. That will continue unless there are strong regulations on noise.

10:20 a.m.

Tai Ziola speaks in support of the zoning bylaw. She has not said if she is with any organization, but says this will help make Edmonton the city people want to live in. She is an architect working on infill housing, but the range of housing available now is just not meeting everyone’s needs, she said. The housing available now is one-size fits all. It doesn’t serve people who are looking for a secondary suite to support their autistic son, for example.

Making these types of changes will allow the communities to be more sustainable, so we don’t have to locate all of our new development in greenfields. Investing here will be better for taxpayers.

It will be possible to be inspired by the current shape of the neighbourhoods when you are building new. But the right words are not “protect” and “preserve,” she said. We want to make sure the neighbourhood schools stay open, and that all areas have great transit. We need to ask how we can get more people living in mature neighbourhoods.

What’s really going to make a big difference is the reinvestment, and the increase in diversity of housing type in mature neighbourhoods.

10:15 a.m.

Nick Iozzo, Canadian Home Builder’s Association – Edmonton Region. He says they have been consulted since the first drafts of these zoning changes were written. It’s important to make sure there are many option in housing available, and he encourages council to pass these amendments. “It contributes to the creation of mature neighbourhoods that are both viable and adaptable,” he said. It will contribute to the neighbourhoods’ sustainability and the sustainability of the entire city.

They do have two concerns. One is a limitation on rear garages, except on corner lots. “We’re unclear why such restrictive regulations are needed,” he said. Also, there is a regulation that says the builder cannot submit documentation on the neighbourhood consultation until 21 days after it was started, even if consultation is complete. Then he ran out of time.

10:10 a.m.

Irene Blain is the first public speaker. She represents the West Jasper Sherwood Community League.

She’s opposed to how much homes will be able to shadow their neighbours. She’s also opposed to the rule that allows homes with front approaches to build front garages. Already, development officers are ignoring the current bylaw, she said. In three instances, officers have allowed home owners to build large front garages protruding about seven metres. Neighbours were not even notified, she said.

“If you allow development officers to make judgement calls without talking with the community,” more of these homes will be built.

Second, Nathaniel Aytenfisu lives in Allendale. “I strongly believe the city of Edmonton should proceed with the text amendments that would allow 50-foot lots to be subdivided,” he said. It’s a smart way to use land and increase density. It will reduce urban sprawl, and is support by the other planning documents. “It will make infill housing much more affordable,” he said. It will allow young families to buy new homes in mature neighbourhoods, which is not possible today. They are expecting a new child. If these new homes are available, it will allow them to stay and raise a family in the mature neighbourhood, which is close to where Nathanial works downtown.

10:05 a.m.

Concern: There are infill guidelines that have not been addressed in the amendments. Planning manager Mackie says they will continue to work on this.

In conclusion, the new amendments are improved from last October. There continue to be concerns, but the city has also been getting positive feedback, including from people who can’t afford to live in these areas now.

10:00 a.m.

The main concern they’ve heard is that the setback will change the existing street face. Mackie disagrees with that because they are not changing the massing. “The issue here is we are trying to provide a balance,” he said.

Concern: not enough amenity space. Mackie said this is not being changed.

Concern: There is too much development officer discretion. Mackie says these changes actually provide more clarity so they have less discretion.

Concern: Density will increase substantially. Mackie says density will only increase over a number of years, and will likely not increase more than what the neighbourhood was originally intended to have. “For the most part, this does not affect density,” he said.

Concern: Moving the rule from regulation to use will give development officers more discretion. Mackie says they checked with their lawyer and no, that’s not the case. “It already can be varied because it is a regulation even though it is embedded in the use.”

There is opposition to allowing row houses to increase their site coverage, but in these zoning amendments, that site coverage is not changing.

The amendments will be allowing apartments and row-housing anywhere in the RF3 zone. There is opposition to this, but the administration is still recommending it.

9:55 a.m.

The front setback regulations will be changing. The current regulations say the new house must be within 1 metre of the other homes. The new set backs would change that to 2.5 metres, to allow houses to move forward and have more backyard space.

On front garages, planning manager Scott Mackie says, they will only allow them on wide lots where more than 50 per cent of the other homes on the block have front garages.

The existing regulations only let homes or garages protrude by 1 metre, but in many areas the garages already protrude more than one meter in mature areas where front garages are common. It’s not reasonable to expect them to rebuild their garages with less of a protrusion, Mackie said. That’s why they’ve changed the rules to say a garage can only protrude as much as the others on the block do.

9:50 a.m.

Scott Mackie (Corrected), Manager of the City’s Current Planning Branch, starts the presentation on behalf of city administration. Says the changes are meant to address population decline. He says he’ll run through the changes quickly, but they are also outlined in the report to council.

Majority of amendments impact RF2, 3 and 4, about 6,000 lots impacted in the city. “The amendments don’t significantly affect RF1,” he said. That’s the most common zoning for single family residential.

The ability to subdivide 50 foot lots is one of the biggest changes. It allows two narrow homes. “This is a form of housing that is very common in most large cities in North America,” he said. It doesn’t impact the general massing of the site or density. They are allowing the garage to take a bit more of the lot (from 12% to 14%), to accommodate a two-car garage.

These would be allowed on corner lots and between duplex buildings in RF1, but is still a discretionary use so the neighbourhood will be notified. Their use would be much more widespread in RF2.

Housing should be individually defined and have an entrance feature. But the planners didn’t want to be too prescriptive to limit creativity by builders.

9:30 a.m.

Meeting gets underway with approval of the budget and other protocol items. The zoning changes are the first item on the agenda.

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the “X” in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.